It’s been a bit since I’ve internet bigfooted, so here I go with a shiny new video that came out very recently. First the video, so you can know what my comments are on.
So, epic blob-squatch in a picturesque setting. The clip is nothing of interest to anyone, including bigfooters, who can’t even verify what’s in the video, let alone that It’s an undiscovered creature. Even worse is that there is no reason for the man to have been filming that waterfall.
I also wonder about the apparent container of some sort (maybe a bucket or suitcase) that the “creature” is carrying. Could it be an indication that it’s some innocent fisherman distorted by a low quality camera into a budget blob-squatch?
Why this video is making the rounds I don’t understand. It’s epically unexciting.
It’s spring. Spring means some new Squatch Photos. I have two images I specifically want to talk about, simply becuase they’re either typical of a spring bigfoot photo, or they’re incredibly unusual. I’m going to start with the typical one.
Check out how blurry that one is. And it gets even worse when you make the picture bigger. This is very typical of a spring Squatch photo. People arn’t used to seeing the area, and things change over the course of the winter. This could be a rotting stump for all we know, the image isn’t clear enough to tell anything save it’s a large, amorphous black shape. And, there is no higher resolution on this image (You can visit Cryptomundo for more on the sighting).
The second one escapes the common problem of the “Blobsquatch” effect. It’s a bit dark, and a bit blurry, but it isn’t a quantifiable blobsquatch. You can see some definition. But still, it’s blurry. And it’s impossible to tell anything definitive from it.
The only problem is that it’s so blurry I can’t even rule out photoshop, let alone the creature really being a person in a suit. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If this image was part of a set of images with at least one or two super-clear ones, it would be much more compelling. Instead it’s a lone blurry image and means nothing to science. See the evidence yourself at Cryptomundo.
It really is sad. With all the cameras around, why is the evidence getting worse, not better?
[/one_half]
[one_half_last]
TruTV Says…
TruTV’s Blogger Norma Lee Jennings seems to think that Bigfoot will be found soon. She gives 5 reasons, and I’d like to talk about them in some detail.
Animal Planet’s Finding Bigfoot
I do have to admit that it gets attention for the field and the research. I just wish they spent longer in a single places and actually dug in to do some real science. But the show is focused on entertainment (and I have to admit, I adore Bobo) rather than the science… Too bad it should be the other way around if they want to do anything useful with what they do…
Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization’s Expeditions
Because screaming in the woods makes wildlife comfortable? Because charging people to come out and help you with science is normal? These expeditions find tracks, and hear the occasional call. They don’t generally experience actual sightings of the animals they claim are all around them. Do better science, don’t do commercial “science”.
Sharon Lee Lomurno’s Kickstarter Campaign
Because a night here and there is good science? No. It’s not. Good science is a long term study of an area that lets the wildlife get used to you so that your mere presence stops interfering with your research. A random trip across the country will just mean it’s like the Finding Bigfoot people. Expeditions to short to do more than provide an initial survey of an area. Buckle down and do some real research on a specific spot if you’re interested in actually trying, people!
Professor Jeffrey Meldrum’s Blimp Meldrum is at least trying to do science to find bigfoot. and if he was going to be found… This would be… a Start. Too bad Bigfoot are purported to live in thickly forested areas in which a blimp’s ability to see would be badly hampered.
Melba Ketchum’s Scientific Study There are a few points on Ketchum’s paper (I’ve talked about a few of them here and here), so putting it on a list of reasons things might be found is a bad idea. Ketchum’s paper can’t even provide good provenance on most of the DNA samples, let alone verify a single one to be specifically anything. The fact that Katchum had to buy a journal to publish her paper means her paper didn’t pass actual scientific scrutiny. Ketchum’s paper isn’t evidence. It quotes hoaxes as facts. It’s faulty.
This is slightly old news, but I like to examine vocals because I know the noise of the wild, including noises other people who “know the wild” seem not to know… So first… The clips!
[symple_column size=”two-thirds” position=”last”]
The first vocalization isn’t anything that I can’t write off as wolf or coyote. Perhaps human. It’s long, bellowing, and to me reads as either wolf or human-imitating-wolf. Given the lack of concrete other evidence, I can’t call it anything but “creature that is known to exist in the area”. I’m sorry, Mr. Sherman. If it’s not a man hoaxing you, it’s a large predator. Your incredible claim (you heard the sound of a bigfoot) isn’t provable because all you have is the noise. You have no other evidence that even indicates the animal to posit was where you are.
The second section on this first video is far more interesting. It’s definitely something I can’t write off immediately. My first instinct, based off the call, is not bigfoot. This call makes me think Birdwatchers, and I believe that ruling out animals that are unusual but present is the first route to take. Mr. Sherman: My recommendation as an Internet Bigfooter is that you have this clip reviewed by a few birding clubs /without priming/ (don’t tell them you think it’s bigfoot) challenging them to identify the source of the sound. If the local bird-obsessed can’t figure out a bird that matches it, then we can talk Bigfoot.
[/symple_column]
[symple_column size=”two-thirds” position=”last”]
I would like to thank Mr. Sherman for the time he spends actually presenting his evidence.
Sadly, though, I once again don’t agree with his assessment. It sounds like a juvenile wolf to me. One that’s not great at getting his voice going and has to spend some time “warming up” so to speak. Perhaps joined by one of his elders? This video features a wolf doing long, low wails that lack the ululation that is commonly associated by those who’ve only heard a few howls on TV. He even dips down and plays in the “whoop” range that I hear associated with bigfoot.
[/symple_column]
Sasquatch shouldn’t be anybodies first guesses with these. Call in a wolf expert. Learn about the pack(s) that live where you are. Investigate with experts in proven animals first, so that you can remove everything that’s even questionably another species.
And don’t give me that crap about them hiding their vocals in those of other animals. You want proof, not guesses. Until you bring me video of a Sasquatch vocalizing on camera, you can’t prove they do it. Start looking for PROOF. Not evidence that can’t be verified. It’s worthless.
I continue to be amazed by the stubborn way the hard-cores in bigfooting cling to the idea that their initial decision, regardless of any scientific results, that whatever they want to be of bigfoot origin.
Ketchum responded (via Facebook, because that’s where all reputable scientists respond to questions to their work) claiming that the references were demanded by reviewers and that she “had not felt had any place in our manuscript and were not included originally“. I say this, Ketchum: If the references had no place in your paper and were related only to “so-called folklore”, then why were they not presented in the paper as such, and referenced in the text of the paper as “other scientific evidence lending credence to the existence of Sasquatch“?
I’m with idoubtit that Ketchum likely believes in her work, and is not maliciously perpetrating a hoax. But this does not change the fact that, even if she has proof, she’s rushed her paper to publish in a journal with no credibility, and with little to know scientific review, or even review of her paper on her part. This is why reputable journals wouldn’t publish. This is why the scientific publishing review process exists!
Check out how blurry that one is. And it gets even worse when you make the picture bigger. This is very typical of a spring Squatch photo. People arn’t used to seeing the area, and things change over the course of the winter. This could be a rotting stump for all we know, the image isn’t clear enough to tell anything save it’s a large, amorphous black shape. And, there is no higher resolution on this image (You can visit 
The second one escapes the common problem of the “Blobsquatch” effect. It’s a bit dark, and a bit blurry, but it isn’t a quantifiable blobsquatch. You can see some definition. But still, it’s blurry. And it’s impossible to tell anything definitive from it.